Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Why Do Republicans claim that Reagan was a good president?

Especially considering the Stock Market Crashed when Reagan was president Known as Black Monday.

Which proves that Reaganomics trickle down has never worked .

So I say Yes let those tax cuts and breaks for the wealthy expire .

Giving the wealthy all the tax breaks Never helped our economy as far back as Reagan.

And I do remember those Reagan years as if it were yesterday .


Insults and FOX Limbaugh buzz words mean nothing to me LOL

Update 2:

Why can't Republicans / Conservatives Handle the truth - the FACTS that are Public .

Update 3:

Black Monday had everything to do with Reagan

Update 4:

Well talk about people keeping their money Conservatives - then Why did Republicans take the money from every day working people instead of the wealthy ? The wealthy use that money to make even more money for themselves and their off shore bank accounts . The working person uses those tax breaks to Buy products - which in the end keeps our economy healthy.

15 Answers

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I have never been able to figure that out because --

    - Reagan presided over the wholesale dismantling of our industrial infrastructure for short term profits for the very wealthy, who were already making record profits, and to destroy the unions. Millions of people were thrown out of work, and the remaining workers were told to work twice as hard. Our productivity increased +45%, but wages for working people remained frozen. We were encouraged to borrow money until household debt was nearly 100% of GDP. Personal bankruptcies went up +610%. Incarcerations went up +355%. Anti-Depressants went up +305%. Health care costs went up +78%. The ratio of CEO pay to worker pay went up +649%.

    - "Trickle-Down" worked exactly as intended, to benefit the wealthiest at the expense of working class Americans. It increased economic inequality and shifted most of America's wealth to the top.

    - Republicans then went after education – doing away with civics classes and making education another brass ring that could be grasped only by accumulating massive debt. Debt served to create a society of indentured servants who may think they work for XYZ Company, but really work for the bank.

    - One of the last pieces of this recipe for Oligarchy was to deregulate the media. Reagan did away with media ownership laws as well as the Fairness doctrine, which made propagandists like Rush Limbaugh possible. The airwaves were then flooded with pro-corporate, anti-worker Republican propaganda to keep the people stupid enough to vote Republican.

    - Inequality grew by leaps and bounds under Reagan.

    - As governor, Reagan oversaw the largest tax increase in Californian history. Democratic Governor Jerry Brown cut back the tax rate when he came to office.

    - As president, Reagan expanded the federal government by about 90%. Reagan allowed the welfare state to enlarge and the military budget to explode causing monstrous budget deficits and government growth that dwarfs government growth under Clinton, even when Clinton had a Democratic Congress. The number of federal workers rose 61,000 under Reagan, as opposed to Clinton who cut 373,000 jobs.

    - Reagan also bombed Libya, put the "war" in War on Drugs, allowed the continuation of Selective Service registration (despite his campaign promise to end it), helped the Khmer Rouge terrorize Thailand, imposed brutal trade sanctions on Nicaragua, funded the murderous brutal Contras, sold missiles to Iran, gave assistance to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and lied to the American people.

    - The foreign policy of Ronald Reagan did more to impoverish and kill the poor and helpless humans of the world than any world leader before or since - with the possible exception of GWB. He was going to defeat communism (which was already falling of its own weight) and he didn't care how many children were burned alive or how many people starved to death on the way.

    - In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983. (In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP.)

    - Reagan raised taxes twice in 1982, and then raised them again in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. In spite of all those tax hikes, Reagan didn't grow his way out of the deficits caused by his 1981 tax cut.

    - It took an eighth tax hike from George Bush Sr. in 1989, a ninth in 1990, a tenth from Bill Clinton in 1993, and then another economic boom to erase Reagan’s deficit. Sure, a strong economy helped, but without all those tax increases the deficit would never have disappeared.

    -Reagan increased unemployment from 7% to 11% in his first three years. The unemployment rate did not get better until his fourth year.

    - Reagan taxed the wealthy at 50%. (Governing to the right of Reagan, Obama taxes the wealthy at 35%.)

    - Ideologically, he was a hater and an imperialist and far-right loony-tune. He hated the poor. He hated gays. He hated leftists. He hated communists - and he was pretty sure you were one if you disagreed with him. He never met a social program he didn't scorn. He never met an American in need he wanted to help. His response to the AIDS epidemic is one of the most sickening cold-blooded expressions of pure murderous political evil in the history of the earth.

    - Then there was Iran-Contra, the infamous orgy of unfettered criminality at the heart of the Reagan legacy. Look it up. Rogues, liars, crooks, murderers and ignorant heartless scum surrounded Reagan at all times.


    Source(s): A Taxing Experience Income Inequality and Political Parties Ronald Reagan’s Good Rhetoric, Bad Policies, and Vile Followers Tax Cuts and Deficits Tax Reform and Class Warfare Why Trickle Down Can’t Work Greenspan’s Fraud, a review by Thom Hartmann Workers Losing in the War on the Middle Class Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots)
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Questions are for learning something. You seem to be more interested in validating your preconceived political beliefs than learning something. Why bother asking a question if you aren't going to listen?

    I really would like Liberals to explain just what they THINK trickle-down economics is or how it works. They never explain this. It might expose just why they think it "doesn't work". Their image of this seems to be little more than giving "the rich" special treatment in the hope they will pass some of it on, like scraps from their fancy dinner table. "The rich" is a necessary scapegoat for the politics of victimization Liberals need to get any mileage out of their policies.

    Supply side (trickle-down) economics provides positive, beneficial effects for the operation of a business. This can come in the form of tax cuts (the usual form), demand for it’s goods or services, reduced regulatory red-tape and it’s cost or other business-friendly policies. When implemented on a broad scope of the business environment and the economic problems that caused an economic downturn have been cleared enough out of the system, this translates into B2B spending, job creation due to expansion and other general trickle-down spending in the community. All this results in sustainable jobs not paid for by taxpayers. Revenues also increase to government coffers. Business friendly supply-side also makes it easier for start-ups to flourish, adding additional revenue. The trickle down are the jobs and opportunities that are made for people to take advantage of, not some sort of money simply stuffed in their pockets by a private or public sector version of Santa Claus. The jobs drive the up escalator of upward mobility that creates the real wealth.

    Supply-side economics worked for Harding, Coolidge, JFK (posthumously), Reagan of course, Clinton (cap gains tax cut) and Bush with his modest tax cuts. Supply-side (trickle-down) economics, in the form of spending, even worked as FDR found out. When he came into office, he started out with some very business-oriented policies, namely with the banks. Banks are the backbone of the economy. The Great Depression then ended in 1933. Then, he proceeded on a Progressive socioeconomic spending/restructuring (fundamental change) campaign. He distrusted big business, thinking they should be more like “partners” with government and outlets for government policy. All this kept the effects of the depression lingering on for seven more long years. Then, despite himself in 1940, he was forced to buy planes, tanks, ships, bombs, bullets and beans. This was trickle-down economics aimed straight AT business. A sharp recovery, which should have started in 1933, now took place and lifted the economy back to prosperity within a year. His first seven years of economic policy of prime-the-pump social spending might have been good for a welfare state, but did address nor fix the problems of the economy. His supply-side spending of his 8th year is what did that.

    As for Reagan, he cut the highest income tax rate from 70% to 28%, did a 15% across-the-board tax cuts and simplified the tax structure. He also had the courage to tough out reigning in the money supply that was causing the crippling stagflation. Both of these policies created a new, a solid foundation for the country that supported a 17 year booming economy. Revenues during this time also doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion. Unemployment dropped from 10.4% to 5%. Inflation dropped from double digits to about 2%.

    The Stock Market crash was a test of how STRONG the economy was, thanks to Reaganomics. The market dropped 500 points without the economy even flinching, like the wisdom of how a new house was built being tested when a hurricane hits. It also shrugged off the 1991 recession like it wasn't there. It's strong growth picked up where it left off after the recession ended, without any government involvement.

    "Taking money from working people"?!!! Please! I don't even know where to begin with that!

    BTW I was in college during Reagan. My Liberal surroundings and I always mocked him. It wasn't until I was away from that when I started to LEARN about Reagan. My views changed 180 degrees. I wish there was room here to demolish the superficial (although impressive sounding) arguments @iris054 made. Then again, her's is what you simply want to hear.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Lauren
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    NO !! Reagan will go down in popularity once all the peanut brains of the baby boomer generation die. For some reason, they will not or cannot see the damage Reagan did to the country. History will not be so kind when Social Security and Medic aid FAIL due to HIS BORROWING OF THE MONEY !!! Iran - Contra . President Reagan should have been impeached for this but politics won over the law. No one wanted to impeach a popular President even though he broke the law. DEBT Reagan BORROWED 2 TRILLION dollars !!! He set the trend for the GOP as the BORROW and SPEND party. AIDS How many lives were lost because Reagan played politics with the FACTS the CDC was giving him. It wasn't a national issue until heterosexuals started to die from it. Most were infected from a blood supply that should have been screened but was deemed too costly and too much hastle for a disease that killed homosexuals.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    I was a Democrat before Reagan. I sat in the car in the 70's and waited in line for gas with my parents and supported Carter for President. Then when my father was given a promotion and transferred to Illinois at the end of 1979 I realized how bad the economy was. We bought a house for $120k with an 18% mortgage. When Reagan took over, Iran was holding 56 American hostages, the Interest rates were over 16%, the unemployment rate was over 10% and the USSR had just invaded Afghanistan. There was no housing market because the interest rates were so high.

    I laugh at the rationale that Reaganomics didn't work because at the end of his 2nd term we had a stock market crash. I focus mainly on the facts that by the end of his 2nd term interest rates were back below 10%, the unemployment rate was back below 6%, the budget was balanced, the USSR had collapsed and the economy was growing at 3.5% per year. Furthermore, Reagan set the table for the prosperity that happened in the next 12 years.

    Now I will address the Stock Market crash in 1987. When Reagan took over the stock market was at about 850 when he left office the Stock Market was about 2000 after the high of about 2700 or more than triple the value. When your buddy Clinton was in office all he had to do was babysit the economy, it was on cruise control. So how did the Stock Market perform under Clinton, A mini crash around Thanksgiving 1994, a crash in October 1997 and as he was leaving office the entire tech sector crashed. The market went from about 3400 to 11000. Who was better, the market tripled under both presidents but one was given a good economy and one was given crap. Why do I defend Reagan, I will let you tell me based on the facts.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Well. one correction, David. Reagan didn't topple the foreign power personally. He armed and encouraged primitive tribesmen to help bring down Afghanistan's ally and America's Bete Noir. Then those primitive tribesmen turned on America. So America encouraged the Taliban to bring down the Mujaheddin, and they also turned on America. There was an attack on the Twin Towers as well so really, Reagan has caused the US and the rest of the world a lot of headaches with his interfering. But interfering is what Americans do best. There is still Iran to be considered!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Near
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    It's funny you accuse conservatives of being unable to handle the truth when "grandma zaza" just cited the fact of the matter. It had nothing to do with Reagan. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's true. Why don't you look into its causes, then try again.

    More than anything, it appears computers played a big role. More specifically, automated trading.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Actually I always saw Reaganomics as a return to Feudalism, slightly Americanized. Really rich Americans would be the feudal lords, and you would have an artisan/tradesmen class to service them, followed by the serfs that would sustain themselves on the table scraps from the Lord of the Manor making them wealthier.

    The American twist is that, in theory, any American can work his way up to be a Lord of the Manor. The problem is without the serfs and the artisans there would not be any Lords. So in order for the Lords to stay Lords they have to keep the artisans and serfs as they are. There is no upward mobility in Reaganomics.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    your bias is glaring.

    Black Monday was caused by program trading, combined with the illiquidity of the stocks being traded.

    not Reaganomics.

    any widespread program trading of illiquid stocks will cause big drops...and as the market is volatile, big drops beget other big drops...the next thing you have a black monday.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    You are acting as if giving tax breaks are giving people money. The tax breaks allow people to KEEP MORE of their own money.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Not sure, there were plenty of better presidents than him from both parties.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • David
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    ?? Regan was one of the best presidents ever. He toppled a foreign super power with guile rather than war. He boosted development in so many area's that it's easier just to say ALL area's of technology. He turned the economy around from the mess Carter made of things, do you remember 16% interest on mortgages being considered good rates? I do.

    It's not just Republicans who say Regan was one of the great ones, educated Democrats say the same, and Libertarians. Go study history before you make claims against this man.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.